With Black Friday deals behind us and Christmas fast approaching it’s a good time to reflect back on this year’s biggest deals. I was always a big fan of Black Friday, particularly for video game shopping. Unfortunately, the last few years have been lacking to say the least. After this year’s disastrous sales, I am left wondering, what happened to Black Friday?

The Golden Years of Black Friday

Every probably has their own version of the best years of Black Friday sales. My favorites were in the early 2010s, but looking back, the 90s and 2000s were equally great. Now, I’m not about to get into the history of Black Friday or whether the consumerism surrounding it is a bad thing. I will say that the big sales of yesteryear made it possible for many people to afford Christmas gifts that they otherwise may not be able to.

Back then, people would often camp out in front of stores days before the sale began. While it is a bit sad, people would often forego spending Thanksgiving with their family in order to score a deal on a new computer or big-screen TV.

Retailers notoriously got few of the heavily advertised doorbusters, which often led to customers fighting. I am certainly glad those days are over, but people often forget how many great deals were available outside of those limited big-ticket items. Sure, you could save over $500 on a new TV, but you could also save 50% or more on other electronics and video games. I would easily fill up a basket of these items and save significantly more than those people fighting for TVs.

There was even a period of time when you could price-match sales at other retailers. My personal favorite money-saving method was stacking Best Buy’s video game sales with their Gamer’s Club discount. Unfortunately, those days are long gone, and it doesn’t look like they will ever come back.

The Black Friday Creep Begins

One of the central themes of the 2010s was the Black Friday creep, which saw stores open increasingly earlier. Essentially, each retailer would try to beat out the other. Stores traditionally opened at their standard time or a little earlier on Friday. However, that began moving earlier and earlier in the late 2000s. By the early 2010s stores were opening at midnight on Friday.

As the years went by and competition ratcheted up, the opening time eventually made it to the afternoon on Thanksgiving day. The whole thing was pretty ridiculous considering Thanksgiving is about being thankful for what you have and retailers ate into that for pure profits. Now, I don’t blame anyone who worked on Thanksgiving day, and I know for a fact that many people enjoyed doing it. But it is sad that things got to that point.

Back to the creep, it was actually pretty convenient as stores had staggered openings. I would go hit Walmart, then Target, then Best Buy, before going to smaller stores like Hastings and even Sears. There are three Walmarts in my area and each one of them would always end up with something a little different, so I would be sure to hit each of them throughout the night. The next morning I would get up early and do it all again at the retailers that were still opening on Friday, like Sam’s, Home Depot, and Lowes.

The Pandemic Upends Black Friday Shopping

Things were already coming to a head in the years before the pandemic, but that certainly shut the door on Black Friday as we knew it. From a chip shortage to limited stock and social distancing, most retailers had limited in-store sales. That seemingly empowered them to not open on Thanksgiving day.

However, it also jumpstarted a new trend of starting sales at the beginning of November. Now instead of sales slowly creeping up earlier, we jumped several weeks. Obviously, it wasn’t practical to have a traditional sale in 2020, but turning Black Friday into a month long spectacle wasn’t the answer. In the years since most retailers have stuck to a similar system where they have multiple small sales throughout the month of November.

You Call This a Sale?

With the 2024 holiday shopping season in full swing, I can honestly say that I have no idea what happened to the sales this year. Now, there were certainly some good deals, especially on video games. However, there were very few big sales, with almost everything being online this year. I am not one to say “This was the worst Black Friday ever” because those people literally sound like a broken record every year.

I will say that most of the sales weren’t remarkable enough to dump a fortune, especially at a time when the costs of everyday items are still rising. I believe one problem in the stagnation of Black Friday is that big ticket items like TVs have finally reached their floor, with little room for major price drops. On the other hand, video games have been going up in price and holding at these higher price points for several years.

Movies are all but non-existent as most people have switched to streaming. Honestly, I am most disappointed in the lack of sales at the big box home improvement stores. Home Depot and Lowes always had excellent deals on a range of power tools, but those too are few and far between. Additionally, Lego sales were also few and far between compared to the last couple of years.

Where Do Black Friday Sales Go From Here?

Let’s set the record straight, Black Friday isn’t going away anytime soon. However, if sales continue to slow up shoppers will likely begin to pay less attention. That probably won’t be as big of a deal for retailers as you may think since people would then be left paying full price for their Christmas gifts.

The reality is that is a long way away because the data shows that Black Friday continues to break records. I think we will continue seeing electronics on sale, but the better deals will be on larger TVs that have a higher margin. Toys, video games, clothing, and home goods should continue to be on sale, but at a lower discount level.

Keep in mind that these sales also hinge on how the economy is doing in future years. A lot of factors are still up in the air as people struggle to cover basic living expenses. Plus, the threat of new tariffs could drive prices higher. If retailers do begin to feel the squeeze from consumers not spending, then they will be more inclined to have better sales. However, those sales may barely offset the price increases caused by tariffs.

I personally hope that sales shift back to the week of Thanksgiving or even the weekend following it. With that said, I do not want stores to open on Thanksgiving again. That was a dumb decision that too many companies got on board with. I really believe retailers will slowly shift back to bigger sales and potentially in-store sales, but until then we will just have to deal with mediocre online specials.

The early 2010s were a wild time for gamers. With the Xbox 360 dominating living rooms and the PlayStation 3 nipping at its heels, speculation about the next generation of consoles ran rampant. Among the most persistent—and most fascinating—rumors was the Xbox 720. For those who lived through it, the Xbox 720 rumors became part of gaming folklore. I was in middle school and vividly remember everyone talking about the Xbox 720 almost daily.

Let’s take a nostalgia trip back to a time when online forums and gaming blogs were the go-to sources for inside scoops and wild speculation. This article takes a look back at those days of whispers, leaks, and half-baked theories that captivated the gaming community.

The Birth of the Xbox 720 Rumors

As early as 2009, chatter about Microsoft’s next console began making waves. The Xbox 360, launched in 2005, had been a major success. By the end of the decade, gamers were already hungry for something new. The first whispers about the so-called “Xbox 720” came from anonymous online posts, insider claims, and vague interviews with industry experts. The “720” moniker became the shorthand for Microsoft’s hypothetical successor to the 360, despite no official confirmation.

The Xbox 720 name made sense—after all, it was a simple doubling of 360. Many assumed that Microsoft would stick with the naming convention. It created the perfect opportunity for tech enthusiasts to speculate endlessly about the mysterious “720” and its possible features.

Endless Rumors and Speculation

Between 2010 and 2013, the gaming rumor mill was in full swing. Speculative articles about the Xbox 720 flooded forums like NeoGAF, Reddit, and IGN’s comment sections. What made these rumors so captivating was how varied—and sometimes absurd—they were.

• Virtual Reality and Motion Control: Some rumors hinted that the Xbox 720 would integrate full-body motion controls and virtual reality (VR) technology, far surpassing the Kinect. However, Microsoft hadn’t even released the Kinect when the 720 rumors swirled. Microsoft experimented with motion controls on the Xbox 360, but the next step, many believed, would be a VR headset bundled with every console.
• Always-Online DRM: One of the most infamous rumors surrounding the Xbox 720 was the dreaded “always-online” requirement. The rumors started out by claiming the 720 may not have a disc drive. According to leaks, the next Xbox would need a constant internet connection to function, which sparked widespread panic among gamers with unreliable connections. Memes, debates, and full-blown outrage followed, fueled by concerns over privacy and how used games would be handled. There was some truth to those rumors, but Microsoft eventually walked back that decision.
• Cloud-Based Gaming: Another common theme in Xbox 720 rumors was the idea of cloud-based gaming. In theory, this meant that games wouldn’t need to be stored locally. Players could access their entire library from anywhere with an internet connection. This concept, though exciting, felt like a distant possibility at the time. Internet speeds in the early 2010s could never have handled the speeds needed for this type of gameplay.
• Backward Compatibility: Fans were divided on whether the Xbox 720 would support Xbox 360 games. Some early rumors suggested full backward compatibility, while others claimed that Microsoft would abandon it entirely. Microsoft initially abandoned backward compatibility on their new console but eventually added the feature.

Fake Leaks and Fan-Made Concept Art

Of course, no great gaming rumor is complete without fake leaks and fan-made concepts. Gamers with Photoshop skills started posting their own visions of what the Xbox 720 might look like. The concepts ranged from sleek, futuristic designs to downright bizarre mockups. YouTube channels uploaded speculative videos about its features, dissecting every scrap of supposed insider info.

There were numerous “leaks” of what the Xbox 720 hardware might look like—complete with fake specifications and detailed diagrams. Some claimed the new console would have a completely modular design, allowing users to swap out parts like a PC. Others predicted that the Xbox 720 would be a streaming-only device, marking the end of physical discs.

These leaks were taken with a grain of salt by many, but for others, they fueled the excitement even further. Each new supposed leak would spawn threads of discussions, with gamers eagerly debating how realistic the new information was.

The Reveal: Xbox One, Not 720

In May 2013, after years of anticipation and rumors, Microsoft officially announced its next console. Microsoft introduced the Xbox One and not the 720. The new name caught many off guard, but it signified Microsoft’s aim to make the Xbox One an all-in-one entertainment hub, rather than just a gaming console.

As the official reveal approached, many of the 720 rumors were put to rest. The Xbox One did have advanced multimedia features, but there was no VR headset, no modular components, and it wasn’t cloud-based as many had speculated. However, the console did initially come with a controversial always-online requirement and restrictions on used games, fueling some of the earlier rumors that had circulated.

The gaming community’s reaction was mixed, with some disappointed that their wildest dreams of the Xbox 720 hadn’t come true. Meanwhile, others were relieved that certain features—like always-online—were scaled back before launch due to backlash.

A Nostalgic Trip Down Memory Lane

Looking back at the Xbox 720 rumors is a nostalgic reminder of the excitement that built around the next generation of consoles in the early 2010s. It was a time when forums were ablaze with speculation, fan-made concept art flooded the internet, and the prospect of an all-new gaming experience seemed just over the horizon.

For those who remember the countless debates, leaks, and excitement, the Xbox 720 represents more than just a number. It stands as a symbol of the gaming community’s passion, imagination, and love for the unknown.

While the radical “X” shaped console looked really cool it would have never fit on my shelf. However, the bland design of the Xbox One left many gamers wishing they got the mystical 720. The Xbox One’s launch was disastrous, to say the least and it forever turned people off of the Xbox brand.

In the end, the Xbox 720 never came to be, but the journey to its rumored existence remains a cherished memory for those who were a part of that era.

The Last of Us is one of the best story-driven video games ever created. Over a decade after its release, it is still just as impressive as the day it came out. However, many people are still wondering if they can play The Last of Us on Xbox. Keep reading as we explore a potential The Last of Us Xbox version.

The Last of Us is available on PlayStation 3, 4, and 5. The game was originally released on the PlayStation 3 in 2013. It pushed the boundaries on what the hardware could do. However, the PlayStation 4 was right around the corner, so Sony released a remastered version with improved graphics.

How to Play The Last of Us Xbox

Unfortunately, Sony has not yet released a version of The Last of Us for Xbox. That means you won’t be able to play on your Series S or X consoles. However, there is still an option, even if you don’t own a PlayStation. Sony recently made The Last of Us available on Steam for PC. You can now play The Last of Us on your computer, and even use your Xbox controller.

While it’s still pretty disappointing that Sony won’t release their games on Xbox, there is some hope for the future. Making games available on Steam was a major step, and Sony does sell Xbox versions of select games like MLB: The Show. It is always possible that Sony could release some of their older titles on Xbox in the future.

The Last of Us Xbox Alternatives

Let’s take a look at the different versions of The Last of Us currently available.

Original Release: PlayStation 3

“The Last of Us” was first released on the PlayStation 3 (PS3) in June 2013. At the time, it was a groundbreaking title that pushed the limits of the console’s hardware. The PS3 version remains the original experience, capturing the gritty post-apocalyptic world with remarkable detail and offering the core storyline that introduced players to Joel and Ellie, the protagonists of the series.

If you still own a PS3, this version is a great way to experience the game as it was originally intended. However, as technology has advanced, newer versions offer improved visuals and additional content.

The Remastered Version: PlayStation 4

In 2014, Naughty Dog released “The Last of Us Remastered” for the PlayStation 4 (PS4). This version was not just a simple port. It featured significant graphical enhancements, including upgraded character models, improved lighting, and higher-resolution textures. It also supported a 1080p resolution at 60 frames per second, providing a smoother and more visually appealing experience compared to the PS3 version.

Additionally, the remastered version included the “Left Behind” DLC, a prequel chapter that delves into Ellie’s backstory. The expansion offered more context to her character and her relationship with her best friend, Riley. The remastered edition on PS4 was considered the definitive way to play until the PS5 version came out.

PlayStation 5 and The Last of Us Part I

With the arrival of the PlayStation 5 (PS5), Naughty Dog once again revisited “The Last of Us,” releasing “The Last of Us Part I” in 2022. This version is a complete remake of the original game, built from the ground up using the PS5’s advanced hardware capabilities. It features photorealistic graphics, improved character animations, and enhanced AI, making the world of “The Last of Us” more immersive than ever before.

“The Last of Us Part I” also takes advantage of the PS5’s DualSense controller features, such as adaptive triggers and haptic feedback, further enhancing the gameplay experience. For those who want the most modern and polished version of the game, “The Last of Us Part I” on PS5 is the ultimate choice.

The Last of Us Part II: PlayStation 4

The story of “The Last of Us” continues in “The Last of Us Part II,” released in 2020 for the PS4. This sequel pushes the boundaries of storytelling and gameplay, delivering an emotionally charged narrative that has sparked both praise and controversy. It features enhanced graphics and refined gameplay mechanics, making it one of the most technically impressive games on the PS4.

The Last of Us Part II Remastered

While “The Last of Us Part II” was designed for the PS4, it also received an update to run on the PS5 with improved performance, including faster load times and a 60fps option. It’s worth noting that the original PS4 version works on the console without the added features. Many fans were disgusted by the blatant cash grab, but it is the best way to experience the game.

Future Possibilities and Other Platforms

As of now, “The Last of Us” series remains exclusive to PlayStation consoles. While there have been rumors and speculation about potential releases on other platforms, such as PC, nothing has been confirmed by Sony or Naughty Dog. However, with Sony’s recent trend of porting some of its exclusive titles to PC, it’s possible that “The Last of Us” could eventually make its way to that platform.

In the meantime, consider picking up a used PS3 or PS4 console. The devices are pretty cheap and open up a whole of first-party exclusives that are still worth playing today.

In the early 2000s, 3D technology was hailed as the next big thing in television. It promised immersive and lifelike viewing experiences and 3D televisions were expected to revolutionize home entertainment. However, 3D televisions failed to gain traction with consumers, and the technology quickly faded into obscurity. In this article, we will explore the reasons behind the rise and fall of 3D televisions and why consumers rejected them.

Limited Content and Accessibility

One of the major hurdles that 3D televisions faced was the limited availability of 3D content. There was a surge in 3D movies released in theaters during the early 2010s. James Cameron’s Avatar had some of the best use of 3D. The same was not true for TV shows or gaming which did not try to adopt the technology. The lone exception was Sony’s foray into 3D gaming with the PS3.

Most TV shows and channels did not produce content in 3D, and the few that did were often limited to sports events or special broadcasts. This lack of compelling and readily available 3D content made it difficult for consumers to justify the investment in a 3D television. Those who owned 3D TVs rarely used the feature on a regular basis. Additionally, the need for special 3D glasses to view the content added an extra layer of inconvenience for viewers.

High Costs and Limited Options

Another significant factor that contributed to the failure of 3D televisions was the high costs associated with the technology. 3D TVs were generally more expensive than regular HDTVs. In addition to the higher upfront costs, there were also ongoing expenses such as the need for additional 3D glasses for family and friends. TVs typically required proprietary glasses that were not compatible with other models. Furthermore, there were limited options in terms of 3D TV models, screen sizes, and brands.

The most common way to watch 3D content was through Blu-Ray discs since streaming options were limited. Unfortunately, that meant consumers also needed special Blu-Ray players and movies. 3D movies were considerably harder to find and more expensive than standard versions. The combination of high costs and limited options made it difficult for 3D televisions to attract a wide consumer base.

Health and Safety Concerns

3D technology also faced health and safety concerns that deterred consumers from embracing it for everyday use. Reports of discomfort, dizziness, and nausea while watching 3D content were not uncommon. Many viewers found the experience to be visually strenuous or even physically uncomfortable. These concerns were particularly pronounced among children, who were more susceptible to the adverse effects of 3D technology.

Additionally, there were concerns about the potential long-term effects of prolonged exposure to 3D content on eyesight and overall eye health. These health and safety concerns raised skepticism among consumers and added another layer of hesitation in adopting 3D televisions. The concerns are similar to the ones currently being raised about VR headsets.

Lack of Consumer Interest and Demand

Despite the initial hype and excitement, it became clear that consumer interest in 3D televisions was waning. Market research showed that consumers were not willing to pay a premium for 3D technology. As a result, many television manufacturers and movie studios scaled back their investments in 3D technology. It’s also worth noting consumers could simply go see movies in theaters and have a much better 3D viewing experience.

Advancements in Alternative Technologies

Another factor that contributed to the decline of 3D televisions was the rapid advancements in alternative technologies. As 3D technology struggled to gain traction, other technologies such as 4K Ultra HD resolution, HDR (High Dynamic Range), and Smart TVs gained momentum in the market. These technologies offered improved picture quality, enhanced color reproduction, and interactive features that appealed to consumers more than 3D technology. The focus shifted from 3D to other features that enhanced everything viewers watched, rather than just a few movies.

Changing Consumer Viewing Habits

The way consumers watch content also evolved during the time when 3D televisions were introduced. Streaming services and on-demand content became increasingly popular, and consumers started watching content on smartphones and tablets. The need for a dedicated 3D television for a premium viewing experience was diminished as consumers sought convenience and flexibility in their content consumption. 3D technology required a specific setup and viewing conditions, which was not compatible with the changing viewing habits of consumers.

Lack of Industry Standardization

The lack of industry standardization in 3D technology also contributed to its failure. There were different types of 3D technologies available in the market, such as active and passive 3D. This lack of standardization created confusion among consumers and many still argue which is the better technology. This lack of consistency and compatibility hindered the widespread adoption of 3D televisions and limited the availability of 3D content.

Negative Reception of 3D Movies

Another factor that impacted the adoption of 3D televisions was the reception of 3D movies in theaters. While there was initially a surge in 3D movies being released in theaters, the quality of these movies and their overall reception was mixed. Many viewers found 3D movies to be gimmicky, with exaggerated and unrealistic effects that did not add value to the viewing experience. Some viewers also complained about the discomfort of wearing 3D glasses for extended periods of time. These mixed reviews and negative reception of 3D movies in theaters influenced consumer perceptions of 3D technology as a whole, including 3D televisions.

Wrapping Up

I really wanted to buy a 3D TV back in the day and was very close to getting one. However, I personally struggled to justify the cost because I would have to re-purchase some movies. The high cost of films made me believe that I would not get enough use out of one. Looking back, I don’t regret missing out on 3D TVs. However, I do regret not picking up one of Sony’s PlayStation 3D TVs just for fun.

For decades, cable television was the go-to source for entertainment and news for millions of households. With its wide range of channels and programming options, it dominated the television landscape. However, in recent years, there has been a dramatic shift as more and more people are leaving cable television in favor of streaming services.

I personally love cable, but I am nearing the end of the road as the quality sucks and prices continue to rise. Obviously streaming has driven many people to get rid of their cable TV service, but I’ve been wondering if there are more reasons why people hate cable TV today. Here are some of the reasons that people say cable TV sucks.

High Costs and Hidden Fees

One of the biggest complaints about cable television is the cost. Cable TV packages can be exorbitantly expensive, with prices constantly on the rise. Moreover, cable companies are notorious for charging hidden fees, such as equipment rental fees, broadcast fees, and regional sports fees, which can add up quickly and inflate monthly bills. Many consumers feel that they are paying for channels and services they don’t even want or need, making cable TV an inefficient and costly option.

I generally don’t have a problem with the price of cable. However, the yearly hassle of having to “bundle,” as my cable provider calls it, is maddening. I am already forced to pay for a ton of garbage I don’t want, including telephone service. I would be perfectly happy paying the exorbitant price if it was as transparent as a streaming service and I had a fair warning before a price increase.

Limited Flexibility and Customization

Cable television often comes with rigid packages and bundles, which means that consumers have to pay for a bundle of channels, even if they only watch a few of them. This lack of flexibility and customization can be frustrating, as consumers are forced to pay for content they don’t want, while being limited in their choices. In contrast, streaming services offer a la carte options, allowing users to choose the specific channels or content they want to watch, providing more flexibility and customization to suit individual preferences.

The economics of cable TV are pretty complicated and certainly beyond the scope of this article. However, there must be a better way to get content. I have nearly every major streaming service, so I really don’t need cable except for sports. But therein lies the problem: There is no alternative to getting sports channels outside of a major package with hundreds of channels of worthless garbage. Of course, the same is also true for people who hate sports and would love a package that didn’t include the costliest channels in a cable package.

Annoying Ads

Cable TV is notorious for its incessant and lengthy advertisements. Viewers are bombarded with commercials during their favorite shows, disrupting the viewing experience and wasting time. Ads are a necessary evil for cable companies, but streaming shows that we can rid ourselves of annoying ads and be much happier. If I start watching a movie on cable, I often look for it on a streaming service so I can watch ad-free and get through it much faster. Even ad-supported services and tiers show significantly shorter ads, and they appear less frequently.

Outdated Technology

Cable TV relies on outdated technology, such as cable boxes and physical cables, which can be clunky and inconvenient. Cable boxes are often required for each TV in the household, leading to a mess of wires and clutter. Moreover, cable companies are notorious for providing poor customer service and outdated user interfaces, making the overall viewing experience less user-friendly. In contrast, streaming services are often accessed through apps on smart TVs, smartphones, tablets, and other devices, offering a more modern and streamlined viewing experience.

Until now, cable in my area was unecrypted, which means I didn’t need a separate cable box for each TV. However, the change to an encrypted network is the driving force of me getting rid of cable. I have a TV in every room, as well as one on my patio and in my shop. It doesn’t make sense to spend $15 per month to get a box for a TV that rarely gets any use. Instead, I can switch to a live TV streaming service and use my existing Roku devices to watch on as many TVs as I want.

Speaking of Outdated technology, the picture quality is downright terrible. A few years ago, I replaced two of my aging HD TVs with a new 4K OLED and QLED. These TVs both had HD boxes attached, but the picture quality was so bad that I almost brought the TVs back. Streaming looks incredible, but I still do not watch cable on that OLED TV. Most annoying of all, my cable company has an option to stream in high-definition, but you have to pay for an additional device to get access to their streaming service.

Flexibility

Another advantage of streaming services is the flexibility in canceling or changing subscriptions. Most streaming services offer monthly subscriptions that can be easily canceled or changed without any long-term commitments. This gives viewers the freedom to try different services, switch between them, or even cancel them altogether without incurring hefty cancellation fees. In contrast, cable TV often requires long-term contracts with early termination fees, making it difficult for viewers to change or cancel subscriptions without financial penalties.

Cancellation isn’t a major problem for me since I don’t plan on switching. In contrast, I would much rather sign a contract and be locked into a price for a couple of years. Of course, we know cable companies would royally mess that up by locking the contract price into shorter period than the actual contract.

The one thing I really like about streaming is how convenient it is to cancel a service and start it back up again. Unlike cable, I can sign up for a service when a new show comes out and cancel as soon as I’m done watching. That means I may pay for Disney Plus this month, then cancel it next month to sign up for Netflix or Max based on what’s coming out.

The Reality of Live TV Streaming

While cable has its flaws, live TV streaming does as well. I have largely avoided anything other than cable since my internet is bundled with it, and canceling TV service will only make my internet go up astronomically. Therefore, cutting the cord doesn’t always represent a major savings.

Another major problem is internet reliability. Today, most people’s home internet is very reliable, but if the strength intermittently dips, you can end up missing the best parts of a show or game. One of my biggest concerns is that my internet speed isn’t fast enough to keep up with so many streams. After all, having to go up to the fastest internet speed in order to keep up with live TV streaming would negate any savings from getting rid of cable in the first place.

Over the years, Apple has managed to revolutionize a number of otherwise boring devices into something truly extraordinary. The most recent example is the Apple Watch, which other tech companies have struggled to find success with. But Apple will really need to pull a rabbit out of their hat with the latest device. The Apple Vision Pro is a major gamble for the company, and there are some glaring reasons that it will fail spectacularly.

1. People Can’t Afford a $3,500 VR Headset

Apple may use the term “Spatial Computing,” but the reality is that the Vision Pro is an advanced VR headset that is dramatically more expensive than competing devices. In contrast, the Meta Quest 3 is $500, which is a much more palatable price point for a niche device.

The Vision Pro was also released at a time when consumers were clawing back their spending from pandemic highs as inflation ravaged budgets. Even so, few people would likely want to purchase the headset even if the economy was booming. With the advances in technology, many people believe Apple will release a more affordable version in the near future. Therefore, there isn’t a fear of missing out for consumers.

2. There Isn’t Enough to Do With the Vision Pro

Apple has teased some of what the Vision Pro can do, but headset owners are struggling to use it in their daily lives. Users can obviously watch movies and even work as if they were using a MacBook, but these aren’t groundbreaking features. Conversely, games are seen as the main selling point of a VR headset, but that really isn’t the case with the Vision Pro.

There is some confusion as to what someone should purchase a Vision Pro for. Gaming doesn’t really make sense because of the cost, and nearly every other task can easily be done with a much cheaper device.

3. The Vision Pro Is Uncomfortable

An overarching problem with all VR headsets is comfort. The Vision Pro may be one of the more comfortable headsets on the market, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. The head strap is comprised of a single band that holds the headset against a wearer’s head.

The user’s face can easily start to hurt after wearing a VR headset for a prolonged period of time. Another issue is that people who wear glasses must spend additional money on special lenses since their glasses will not fit inside the bezel. Finally, weight is a factor as the headset really starts to weigh down on the wearer’s face. Apple tried to reduce the weight by implementing a separate battery pack, but that created its own issues.

4. Carrying a Corded Battery Pack Is Unrealistic

An ongoing problem with VR headsets is the need for a battery, and the Vision Pro is no exception. Standalone headsets like the Meta Quest have a battery pack in the headset itself, but the Vision Pro uses a separate battery pack attached to the headset via a cable.

The battery in the headset doesn’t work well because the added weight makes wearing it painful after a while. However, the corded battery pack is equally unrealistic. Firstly, you need an empty pocket to hold the battery. Then, you have to worry about the cord, which easily gets annoying when using hand gestures. Battery technology is improving rapidly, so future Vision Pro headsets will hopefully find a better alternative.

5. High Likelihood of Accidental Damage

Despite having an aluminum frame, the Vision Pro is very much susceptible to breaking. You’ve likely seen videos shared online of broken Vision Pro headsets. The device’s weakest link is, by far, the exterior display. The curved glass is prone to breaking if dropped, which in turn damages the screen.

The exterior display is one of the main reasons that Vision Pro buyers should get optional AppleCare+ coverage. The headset’s size and external battery also make it difficult to store and carry. For instance, you shouldn’t throw it in a backpack.

6. Cheaper Headsets Prove People Are Not Interested in VR

Despite many “tech experts” touting VR as the future for nearly a decade, there has been little adoption by the general public. The biggest hurdle for Apple’s Vision Pro is its insanely high price tag.

Cheaper VR headsets offer great quality in the $500 price range. However, these headsets have largely failed to achieve widespread adoption by average consumers. Even Sony’s PSVR2 hasn’t sold nearly as many units as the company expected. The Meta Quest 3 actually has a high percentage of active users, but still far from what many would consider a life-changing shift in the way people use technology.

7. More App Developers Need to Get on Board

Making games and apps for VR is undoubtedly complicated compared to traditional software development. Managing unique controls with hardware limitations is certainly a balance. However, there is still a major shortage of VR content.

There are a growing number of companies making VR games, but some are outright terrible. Apple may need to put forth some effort to “vet” games before they go to the App Store. Other apps are also needed, especially on the Vision Pro. The good news is that the Vision Pro has ample processing power, but there are few apps that take full advantage of it. It would be really nice to see some apps that lean more heavily on education or other unique experiences.

8. No Concise Uses

Thinking back to the early days of computing, companies often designed devices to complete a specific task or fill a need. However, VR headsets do not fill a need in the market; instead, they try to fill a hole that doesn’t exist.

Tech doesn’t always have to suit a need, as many advancements are simply improvements, for instance, larger storage space or better displays. However, new devices really benefit from solving a problem as consumers see them filling a void. The fact that even gamers are reluctant to adopt VR is awfully reminiscent of 3D TV technology, which also had no real value.

9. Technology Will Continue to Improve

VR technology is improving quickly, and Apple’s Vision Pro is leaps and bounds better than the competition. Apple has already announced that the Vision Pro will not get a successor for a while. That means by the time Apple’s next VR headset releases, other competitors may have already entered the market with better features. Nobody expects the first-generation Vision Pro to sell a remarkable number of headsets, but rapid technological advancements mean Apple may get left in the dust.

10. The Vision Pro Sucks the Humanity Out of Socializing

One of the key differences between Apple’s Vision Pro and every other VR headset on the market is its external display. The display is designed to keep the wearer connected to the people around them. However, that display cannot replace the fact that people desire to socialize with the environment around them.

Numerous Vision Pro owners have complained about the lack of connection to the outside world when wearing the headset. When wearing a conventional VR headset, socialization really isn’t a concern, as most people use them at home for entertainment. However, Apple’s desire to make the Vision Pro a device people wear outside the house is unique. An undesired consequence is that wearers are always viewing the real world through a screen, further blurring the line between reality and the virtual world.

Microsoft released its latest gaming consoles, the Xbox Series S and Xbox Series X, in November 2020. Both consoles offer improved graphics and faster load times than the previous generation, but there are some pretty significant differences between the two. While both consoles can play the same games, they utilize vastly different hardware. This article will explore the differences between the Xbox Series S and Series X to help you decide which is the best.

Hardware:

The Xbox Series X is by far the more powerful console. It boasts an eight-core AMD Zen 2 CPU and a custom RDNA 2 GPU, which together deliver 12 teraflops of processing power. It also has 16GB of GDDR6 memory and a 1TB NVME SSD. It is considered the “premium” choice and is designed to extract every ounce of performance possible.

The Xbox Series S, on the other hand, has a slightly less powerful CPU, GPU, and RAM. It features a custom AMD Zen 2 CPU with eight cores, an RDNA 2 GPU with four teraflops of processing power, and 10GB of GDDR6 memory. The Xbox Series S launched with a smaller 512GB NVME SSD, but a 1TB version is now available.

The most notable difference between the Series X and Series S is that the Series X has a disc drive, while the Series S does not. There are rumors and leaked images that seem to indicate Microsoft will release a disc-less Series X in the future. In the meantime, the Series S is limited to Game Pass and digital purchases, whereas the Series X can also play older Xbox, Xbox 360 and Xbox One discs.

In terms of size, the Xbox Series X is much larger and heavier than the Xbox Series S. The Xbox Series X measures 15.1 x 15.1 x 30.1 cm and weighs 4.45 kg, while the Xbox Series S measures 6.5 x 15.1 x 27.5 cm and weighs 1.93 kg. I’ve found it difficult to make the Series X fit into a conventional TV stand, but the Series S is comparable in size to other set-top boxes.

Graphics:

The Xbox Series X has a more powerful GPU and can deliver better graphics than the Xbox Series S. It supports native 4K gaming at 60 frames per second (FPS) and up to 120 FPS in some games. It also supports ray tracing, a technique that simulates the behavior of light in real time, resulting in more realistic and immersive graphics. The Xbox Series X can even upscale non-4K games to 4K, making them look better on the latest big-screen TVs.

The Xbox Series S, on the other hand, is designed for 1440p gaming, with the ability to upscale to 4K. It can run games at 60 FPS but not at 120 FPS. While it supports ray tracing, it may not be as noticeable due to the lower resolution. The less powerful graphics of the Series S makes it the perfect choice for a kid’s bedroom.

Storage:

Both consoles have custom NVME SSDs, which significantly reduce loading times in games. However, the Xbox Series X comes standard with a larger 1TB SSD, while the Xbox Series S has a smaller 512GB SSD, but a 1TB black model is available. This means that users may need to manage their storage more carefully on the Xbox Series S, particularly if they plan on downloading a lot of games. Alternatively, both consoles have a storage expansion slot that supports a special Xbox SSD expansion card.

Price:

One of the most significant differences between the Xbox Series S and Series X is their price. The Xbox Series S is the more affordable option, retailing at $299, while the Xbox Series X is priced at $499. This makes the Xbox Series S more accessible to budget-conscious gamers, while the Xbox Series X is targeted at those who want the best gaming experience possible. Keep an eye out for specials, as retailers are offering bundles and discounts fairly often on both consoles.

Which one is better?

The Xbox Series S and Series X target completely different audiences. If you want the most powerful console on the market, with the ability to run games in native 4K at 60 FPS or higher, then the Xbox Series X is the better choice. It also has a larger storage capacity, which means you can download and store more games without having to worry about constantly managing your storage space.

On the other hand, if you don’t have a 4K TV or don’t care about running games at 4K, then the Xbox Series S is a great choice. It is much more affordable than the Xbox Series X, making it a great option for gamers on a budget. However, the Series S still delivers an impressive gaming experience with its 1440p resolution and upscaling to 4K. Additionally, its smaller size and weight make it more portable and easier to move around.

Furthermore, the Xbox Series S is a great choice for casual gamers or those who do not need the most advanced graphics and features. It is an excellent option for families or those who want a second console for another room without breaking the bank.

Ultimately, the Xbox Series X is the superior console in terms of hardware and performance, but it comes at a premium price that some people may not need. On the other hand, the Xbox Series S offers a more affordable and accessible option, but it lacks a disc drive. The decision between the two consoles ultimately comes down to personal preferences and priorities.

My Final Thoughts

I got the Xbox Series X on release day and have no regrets about spending the extra money for better graphics. However, I previously owned the first-generation Xbox One, which was in desperate need of an upgrade. If I was purchasing the console for my bedroom or a child, then I would absolutely consider the Series S. Of course, those wanting to use their Xbox as a DVD or BluRay player will need to go with the Series X.

Sony’s PlayStation VR2 headset has been far from a smashing success. It was released just over a year ago and has made no noticeable impact. So it should come as no surprise that Sony is actually pausing production of the PSVR2 in order to clear out its excess inventory. While that may not sound ominous, it does have me wondering if the end of the PSVR2’s run is near.

Sony’s Bad Track Record

Sony had a very good track record for releasing top-tier games throughout the last decade. However, their grip on the gaming industry has loosened drastically over the last few years. The PlayStation 5 does not have enough games and that is not going to change anytime soon as Sony already announced they have no first-party titles planned for the near future.

However, the most prominent of Sony’s failures is the PS Vita. The handheld console came out shortly before the PlayStation 4, and few people recall how fast it was abandoned. The console was a successor to the wildly popular PSP and featured numerous innovations, including an OLED display, 3G connectivity, and a rear touchpad. Surprisingly, the Vita lived on through 2019, but Sony had long abandoned the console. Now, it looks like the PSVR2 may see the same fate.

Is Sony Discontinuing the PSVR2?

Despite some sensationalized headlines, Sony has not abandoned the PSVR2 yet. However, a report from Bloomberg News does indicate that Sony has a massive surplus of headsets that they need to clear out. Therefore, Sony is pausing production of the PSVR2 until they can clear out some of that stock.

It’s been pretty obvious that the PSVR2 is not performing well, in part because few games are available for it. The headset also comes with a high price tag and has limited capabilities compared to other VR headsets, like the Meta Quest. One shocking fact is that Sony has not reduced the price of the PSVR2, nor has it been on sale. However, this is likely due to the headset’s high production costs.

What Is Happening to the PSVR2?

As of right now, nothing is changing with the PSVR2. Sony is not planning on getting rid of the headset and is instead adjusting their inventory to align with the current demand. This could also signal that Sony is planning on releasing a revised headset with some minor improvements and wants to get rid of the original model first. It did something similar with the original PSVR, but that seems unlikely here.

What’s Next for the PSVR2?

The PSVR2 has been in the news lately as the main game developer for its VR games closed. Sony recently laid off 900 employees and shuttered its London studio. This studio was responsible for making most of the first-party VR titles. Fortunately, there is some good news for PSVR2 owners, as Sony also recently announced plans to make the headset work on PCs. Hopefully, this will make the device more marketable and appeal to a wider audience.

Nothing stirs up intrigue like new rumors and announcements from Apple. However, the recently announced cancellation of the Apple Car project shouldn’t be that surprising. An Apple Car has been rumored for years, and the company went so far as showing off concepts for a futuristic dashboard. Unfortunately, it appears that the company has officially pulled the plug with little reason given. Here are the reasons why you should have seen this coming from a mile away.

Apple Is All About Perfection

The first problem with Apple making a car is the company’s affinity for perfecting products. Obviously, there are always going to be hiccups with new releases, and the Vision Pro is evidence of that. However, perfecting a car is an entirely different animal. Apple definitely knows its way around consumer electronics, but jumping out of its niche and into vehicle manufacturing is a leap of faith, to say the least.

A vehicle is also a lot more complex than an iPhone, and Apple would have needed to design everything from the frame down to the seat covers. There are literally thousands of individual components and fasteners that all must work perfectly every time a user drives the vehicle. Ensuring that customers have a perfect experience every time they go out would be nearly impossible for Apple to achieve.

Cars Are Hard to Build

Even if Apple did manage to create a perfect vehicle, they must mass produce it. Apple does not mass produce its existing products and instead outsources the production to third parties, such as Foxconn. While they could try to do the same thing with a car, it would be extremely difficult. There are limited production facilities designed to build automobiles, and those plants are mostly occupied by the companies that build and sell vehicles.

It would be a logistical nightmare even if Apple could find someone to mass-produce their cars. Additionally, batteries for an electric car would have to be sourced, and only a handful of companies are even making EV batteries at the moment. Finally, quality control must be top-notch to avoid missing the most minor imperfections. Once built, Apple would still need a dealer network since the cars certainly wouldn’t fit in the existing Apple Stores.

Other Car Manufacturers Are Collapsing

Apple’s abandonment of its self-driving car should come as no surprise to those who closely watch the automotive industry. Electric vehicles are still struggling to catch on, and their high price tags are not helping either. Ford recently cut back on F-150 Lightning production due to slower-than-anticipated demand.

Things aren’t much better for other EV manufacturers, as companies like Rivian have little to look forward to. Things outside of the EV market are also pretty bleak as consumers claw back on spending. Apple certainly would not be excluded from the struggles that all of these companies face.

Self-Driving Technology Still Has a Long Way to Go

Despite all of the hope for automation and self-driving technology, there is still a long way to go before it works flawlessly. Tesla has spent years testing its self-driving functionality, which is far from perfect. If Apple seriously wanted to sell an autonomous vehicle, then they would potentially have to spend years just on testing its road-worthiness. The company could simply not want to take on such a long-term proposition with the hope of one day seeing a return on its investment.

Wrapping Up

EVs and self-driving cars are likely the future, but it is impossible to say just how far away that future is. The Apple Car gave many people hope for the future of EVs. With all of the factors discussed in mind, it does leave me wondering, was this project even remotely possible, or was it doomed from the start?